Tom Delay to get new judge in campaign finance trial
Now, really!
Did you ever contribute to the RNC? If you did, then I don't think you have any right commenting on a Democrapic prosector.
Oh, wait, that's just as wrong as what you said!
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I'd say contributing money to an organization is about as solid a piece of evidence that someone supports them as it gets. What more do you want?
If his intention was to support Kerry in getting elected, then he could contribute to Kerry and leave it at that. If his intention was to get Kerry elected by way of extremist tactics, he could contribute to an extremist organization, which is what he did. While it might or might not have been the judges intent for the money to be used to elect Kerry, he clearly knew that MoveOn was not about electing Kerry. In fact, Moore came out and said Kerry sucked and was a poor choice for President, but people should vote for him since Bush was worse. Hardly an effective vote-getting speech.
MoveOn was about unseating Bush and DeLay and Frist and just about every Republican, not about electing Kerry.
Look at their ads. They are hate ads aimed at Republicans, not support ads for Democratic candidates.
And if a primary goal of an organization is to unseat someone, NOT GET SOMEONE ELECTED, and then that someone who they are trying to unseat is indicted, then it is again obvious you don't want a judge who supported the organization seeking to unseat that person to sit on that person's trial. It is about as big a conflict of interest as it gets.
ETA: Once the election was over, the time to contribute money to the organization seeking to unseat Republicans is past.
DeLay is simply asking for someone who clearly supports an extremist organization which has attacked him personally to be recused.
If you can't see that someone contributing money to an organization which ran that ad during the time frame the money was contributed as evidence, then you are being incredibly disengenous.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I would be interested in seeing a list of what groups DeLay would find to be objectionable as donation recipients. Do you think there would be any Republican PACs on the list? Would Operation Rescue be on there?
As I stated in my previous post, Judge Perkin's integrity is not in question. What is in question is the integrity of the process. In my opinion, giving money to the Kerry campaign or the DNC in general fails to meet the standard for recusal. However, his donations to a group that uses the specific case in front of him in financial appeals does cross that line.
As Tom DeLay's attorney made clear, the motion should not cast doubt on Judge Perkins in any way. His contribution was legal, ethical and honorable from an objective standpoint. It also happens - like any tie a judge may forge - to exclude him from this particular case.
It's not necessarily a lose for the prosecution. If DeLay is convicted, this decision removes a very strong issue on appeal. If Perkins was indeed unbiased and the next judge is the same, then nothing has changed.
The prosecutor is free to ask any judge who has contributed to such organizations to recuse himself.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes. See, defendants are presumed innocent by the system. The system puts up all kinds of barriers and checks to try to maintain that presumption in the face of the overwhelming power and resources of the State which is prosecuting him. One of them is that the reality of impropriety by a judge is not sufficient -- the appearance of impropriety is important here.
The judge did the right thing by asking another judge to make the call, and the other judge did the right thing by granting the motion for reassignment.
This is also a good thing for the prosecution, even if the prosecutor won't admit it. Imagine a conviction here. Now imagine a conviction from a judge who contributed to moveon.org. Sheesh, the whining that's avoided by this simple change makes it worth it, let alone removing a possible grounds for appeal.
All I can find that MoveOn ran are anti-Bush ads for the 2004 campaign. No "Vote Kerry" ads.
Source Watch
3,651 spots. All of them anti-Bush. No "Vote Kerry" ad.
C-Span
You can watch those ads by clicking on them. Nothing about Kerry. DeLay is mentioned in the second one in connection with Enron.
So during the timeframe that the judge contributed money, we have at least one major print ad and one television ad which directly attack DeLay.
Source Watch
3,651 spots. All of them anti-Bush. No "Vote Kerry" ad.
C-Span
You can watch those ads by clicking on them. Nothing about Kerry. DeLay is mentioned in the second one in connection with Enron.
So during the timeframe that the judge contributed money, we have at least one major print ad and one television ad which directly attack DeLay.
In our system, DeLay's attorneys are advocates. As such, they are supposed to argue those issues that favor their client.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Luke, I agree that a donation to MoveOn does link the judge with that ad in an implicit manner, but I don't agree with your characterization of MoveOn as an "extremeist" organization. On the spectrum from simple advocacy to stridency to extremeist, where do you draw the line that delineates an organization (either right or left) as extremist?
Oh, and while I's asking, I guess I should check my assumption: When you use the word "extremist" can I assume that you mean that in a perjorative manner?
Thanks
Oh, and while I's asking, I guess I should check my assumption: When you use the word "extremist" can I assume that you mean that in a perjorative manner?
Thanks
Sort of. The reality of bias is not the test. It's whether or not the link could appear improper to a reasonable person. As I stated before, since MoveOn has targeted Tom DeLay (which is ethical in a general sense) in its ads, Judge Perkins made donations to MoveOn (which is ethical) a reasonable person can view Perkins as endorsing these ads. If the judge was a TRMPAC contributor, I would see it in the same manner.
The real question is that would a reasonable person expect a MoveOn contributor to have a bias against Tom DeLay. The other question I would argue is that - as been asserted by myself and others in this thread - would a reasonable person interpret a political donation as an endorsement of their agenda? I don't think political advocacy meets this test, but donations to a group that advocates the specific charges in front of the court does.
The appointment of Judge Duncan was, as I understand it, statutory. The trial judge hears the initial motion and decides to recuse himself or by statute hands it to a superior judge. I'm not casting aspersions on Judge Perkins - just pointing out that he probably did not see grounds to recuse himself.
From a Law.com article:
I think the real fight will be over the change of venue motion and in jury selection.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Uh-oh. manny, I'm slipping 'cause I agree with you.
Excellent point.No, I think you're confusing the Judge's right to free speech with the judge's responsibliity to avoid bias.
Rather than get in another pointless argument about what "extremist" means and who is, I will withdraw that adjective from my comments about MoveOn. The term does not matter to the point or evidence that MoveOn had a HardOn for DeLay, specifically targetting him by name, and that the judge supported them financially during that period.
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
I suspect that is why both sides are given attorneys.